Friday, May 12, 2017

Richard
Dawkins is among those who propose something called universal Darwinism, which purports first of all that mathematically
demonstrable scientific discovery constitutes an ultimate truth claim; that is,
it can explain everything. Everything. Universal
Darwinists, however, violate their own stated principle by jumping to the
non-mathematically-demonstrable conclusion that both nature and society can be
explained using nothing but their “Darwinist” triad, i.e., adaptation (evolution) through variation,
selection of the “fit,” and retention
(through heredity).[1]
They have taken an overly general account of natural selection and attempted a
further generalization of that account to everything else: economics,
psychology, anthropology, and linguistics. Linguistics, for our discussion,
falls within the scope of semiotics—the
study of signs—and we will show why universal
Darwinism is inadequate to the task of understanding any of these things.

The linguistics—or study of language—of
the universal Darwinists, whose
obsessive motivating purpose seems to be proving a negative—that there is no
God[2]—is called, unsurprisingly,
“evolutionary linguistics.” In evolutionary linguistics, the basic assumption
is that a word or phrase, for example, is selected in the same way that nature
selects for long necks on giraffes, through a process of variation (different
lengths of neck), selection of the “fit” (longer necks get more food and live
longer to reproduce more); and retention (the trait is stored genetically and
passed on through reproduction of the “fit”).[3]

What is assumed in this worldview is a
clockwork materialism, or the
assumption of the material as an account of all
being, including human culture. This is an aspect of the dualism we discussed
earlier. The subject is unreliable, but the object contains the only
discernable truth, discoverable
through strict observation that is disciplined with mathematics. The Austrian
philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1865—1925) explained how this was an attempt to
break being into time and space
(instead of time-space), separate them and making space the dominant partner.

The
concept of matter arose only because of a very misguided concept of time. The
general belief is that the world would evaporate into a mere apparition without
being if we did not anchor the totality of fleeting events in a permanent,
immutable reality that endures in time while its various individual
configurations change. But time is not a container within which changes occur.
Time does not exist before things or outside of them. It is the tangible
expression of the fact that events—because of their specific nature—form
sequential interrelationships.[4]

For Darwin, as well as Newton, whose
mechanical ideas Darwin adopted, and for Dawkins with his posse of God-phobic
materialists, the separation of time and space, and time’s subordination to
space (materiality that “holds still” for observation), were necessary to
reduce all reality to a sequence of simple, mechanical causes-and-effects, what
Aristotle called “efficient causation.”[5] The other three types of
causation (see footnote) made them dizzy. The reduction of all phenomena to
efficient causes is an attempt at control
(an obsession most often associated with anxiety). If time is not a thing but
an expression of shifting relations, then it, too, is wild. It needs to be
domesticated by the material, locked into plots on a map. French philosopher
Henri Bergson (1859–1941), who analyzed the phenomenon of cinema, compared this
attempt by materialists, to domesticate time, to films—which, though they
appear to flow continuously, can be broken down into frames where all that
disorienting motion can be frozen into the apparent three dimensions of space—height, width, depth—an illusion
cast on a two-dimensional surface.

Such
is the contrivance of the cinematograph. And such is also that of our
knowledge. Instead of attaching ourselves to the inner becoming of things, we
place ourselves outside them in order to recompose their becoming artificially.
We take snapshots, as it were, of the passing reality . . . We may therefore
sum up . . . that the mechanism of our ordinary knowledge is of a cinematographical
kind.[6]

This materialist
notion of language, then, not only cannot account for Taussig’s Bolivian
peasant-miners baptizing money, it cannot account for the immense complexity of
a simple conversation between two Western metropolitan persons about a novel
they both read. What is required is an expansive
and inclusive, not a reductive and
exclusive, approach to language that allows for context. When Ludwig
Wittgenstein (1889—1951) formulated his ideas about language, which he compared
to games, he pointed out that language can mean “giving orders, and obeying
them, describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurements, constructing
an object from a description (a drawing), reporting an event, speculating about
an event, forming and testing a hypothesis, presenting the results of an
experiment in tables and diagrams, making up a story; and reading it, play-acting,
singing, guessing riddles, making a joke or telling it, solving a problem in
practical arithmetic, translating from one language into another, asking,
thinking, cursing, greeting, and praying.”[7]

The universal
Darwinists, in trying to break everything in the universe down to its
evolutionary utility, evade these
problems by claiming that they simply haven’t yet identified the whole train of
cause-and-effect. In other words, their theory is correct even though it hasn’t
yet been scientifically demonstrated to be so, because it is correct. Then they
castigate faith as a form of unfounded belief without the least sense of irony.

More to the point, when they speak of
evolution as if it were reducible to their vary-adapt-retain
triad, they fail to have noticed that human beings—with language in
particular—have evolved to be “biologically determined not to be biologically determined”;[8] in other words, we are by our very nature “constructed” by culture, which cannot, as the dualists
would have it, be separated from nature any more than time can be separated
from matter and space, nor can our semiosphere be deconstructed within the
adapted framework of Newtonian (mechanical) physics.

Wittgenstein’s
theory of language games can be instructive on several accounts when applied to
semiotic discussion. Indeed, any interaction with signs, production of signs,
or attribution of meaning owes its existence to its status as a move in a
language game—that is, a conceptual architecture, a grammar, that we must
uncover. . . Consider
the Augustinian definition of the sign: something put in the place of something
else (to which it is imperative to add: in a relation of meaning or
representation). Wittgenstein tells us that of the elements that make up the
semiotic relation (sign, modes of representation or signifying, the sign’s
referent, etc.), none exists outside a language game. In an interpretive act,
nothing is “intrinsically” a sign: the grammar of the language game is what
makes it possible to identify the sign, its way of being a sign and what it is
a sign of.[9]

Charles
Pierce (1839-1914), the semiotician, developed a classification system for
signs—any signal that refers to something and is received by an interpreter. Human
signs, he said, signify three kinds of phenomena: facts, qualities, and conventions. I point to a can of paint
and I say, “I want that paint.” The term “paint” signifies the actual existing
thing called paint, a fact. When I
browse through the swatch booklet for various paint colors, and I find the one
I want in a paint, I point to the swatch, and say, “I want this one.” In this
case, the sign—the swatch—is not paint, but a way to specify one quality of the paint, its color. When
Harriet Tubman wrote, “Mrs. Stowe’s pen hasn’t begun to paint what slavery is,” she wasn’t referring to paint or the
quality of paint, but to a more complex social issue, using certain speech conventions, like irony and metaphor. Or
in another case, we read an oral thermometer at 101 degrees Fahrenheit, and
that sign—by convention—tells us
someone has a fever, a fact. These
categories—fact, quality, convention—are what Peirce called sign “elements.”

These elements
then appoint classifications to
signs. These classifications he called index,
icon, and symbol. Index signs refer
to natural things. Icon refers to
representative things. Symbol relies
on a socially shared understanding. An actual face is indexical. A portrait photo is iconic.
A yellow happy-face emoticon is symbolic.
And we can see that these categories, from index through icon to symbol become
ever more abstract. Peirce called this “firstness,” “secondness” and
“thirdness.”

The
first is that whose being is simply in itself, not referring to anything or
lying beyond anything. The second is that which is what it is owing to
something to which it is second. The third is that which is what it is owing to
things between which it mediates and which it brings into relation to each
other.[10]

[2] There is a truism in logic that
says, “You cannot prove a negative”; but this is not absolutely true. The
exceptions are “proof of impossibility” (2 plus 2 cannot equal 5) and “evidence
of absence” (There is no coffee in that cup). In this case, however, the claim
“There is no God,” falls outside of either exception, because God—at least as
understood from the perspective of Christian philosophers like Aquinas—is prior
to and transcendent of the Being within which we, as Being’s time-space-matter
captives, establish these kinds of evidentiary proofs.

[5] Aristotle defined four types of
causation: material, formal, efficient, and final. Material causation was what
made up something—this book is made of paper and ink. Formal causation is how
something is formed—a daisy is a daisy and not a rose because of their specific
and differentiated forms. Efficient
causation is a sequence leading to a phenomenon—billiard ball moves, hits
another billiard ball, energy is transferred, second ball moves. Final
causation is a purpose or goal, what an action is aimed at—I am writing now for
the purpose of “causing” a post.